Total topics: 65
Debate Resolution: "The United States ought to institute a federal jobs guarantee"
PRO:
Speaking from a purely economic perspective (culturally we conflate money with morality), homeless people and prisoners cost the state roughly $20,000.00 per person per year. School children in the USA receive a subsidy of roughly $15,000.00 per child per year. Homeless people & prisoners & school children are unproductive members of society (jobless). It would be a great boost to the economy (culturally we conflate money with morality) if we found some jobs for these individuals (since we also tend to conflate laziness with immorality).
Of course a "jobs guarantee" probably doesn't mean "mandatory labor camps".
CON:
Speaking from a purely economic perspective (culturally we conflate money with morality), a deep, primal fear of becoming homeless and a deep, primal fear of being sent to prison contributes immensely to economic productivity. This fundamental and essential primal fear is what keeps the working class (80% of the country) going to jobs they hate, overlooking safety violations, taking verbal abuse from customers and managers, and accepting extremely low wages (keeping consumer prices competitive).
If these workers were "guaranteed a job", then they would walk away from these wretched, dead-end, often physically dangerous jobs (with no retirement or health guarantees) and the nation's entrepreneurs would go out of business. These businesses would probably be replaced by government-run replacements because the government would have a huge surplus of employees due to their "jobs guarantee". This would lead to a totalitarian state, and everybody knows that totalitarian state = teh evil.
Therefore, "The United States ought to institute a federal jobs guarantee" = "totalitarian state" = evil.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
BREONNA TAYLOR - We've been brainwashed again. On both sides.
I normally try and steer-clear of any "topic of the week" and I didn't even look into any of this until today.
I just thought, "cops killed somebody and some people think it was justified and some people don't" it seems like "facts-don't-matter" anymore, so who cares?
# CONCLUSIONS.
###
THIS IS A MASSIVE FAILURE OF INTELLIGENCE.
THE PATRIOT ACT GIVES POLICE VAST, SWEEPING, AND VIRTUALLY UNFETTERED SURVEILLANCE POWERS.
(IFF) THE POLICE HAD NARROWED THE SUSPECT'S LOCATION TO ONLY 2 LIKELY LOCATIONS, WHY DID THEY NOT SIMPLY WAIT FOR THE SUSPECT TO WALK OUTSIDE INTO AN AMBUSH? OR WHY DID THEY NOT SIMPLY PLACE A TRACKER ON THEIR VEHICLE AND AMBUSH THEM (IN PLAINCLOTHES) AS THEY CARRY GROCERIES BACK TO THEIR CAR?
AND IF 3 GUYS IN **PLAINCLOTHES** STARTED BANGING ON MY DOOR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT YELLING "THIS IS THE POLICE" I WOULDN'T BELIEVE THEM.
PRO TIP: I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN AND IT WASN'T "THE POLICE" AT ALL.
Here are the **REAL-TRUE-FACTS**.
BREONNA TAYLOR = INNOCENT
KENNETH WALKER = INNOCENT
JONATHAN MATTINGLY = INNOCENT
BRETT HANKISON = INNOCENT (of manslaughter)
MYLES COSGROVE = INNOCENT
# How the FUCK can they all be innocent you ask??
###
It's a simple matter of brainwashing.
Imagine a blind intersection.
Now imagine that automobile accidents happen at this blind intersection.
All the time.
Every year 300 people die at this blind intersection.
WHO DO YOU BLAME FOR THE ACCIDENT(S)??
YOU ARE BRAINWASHED TO ALWAYS BLAME THE DRIVER(S).
### Nobody ever seems to ask, "who designed this idiotic blind intersection?"
###
We're brainwashed to believe there is always a human, directly involved with the "accident" that "should have" somehow "acted differently" and is somehow "morally inferior" and worthy of blame and "deserves" to be punished or even crippled (or killed).
"well, she shouldn't have been friends with a drug-dealer" I've actually heard someone say.
In some "rare" cases we say "both drivers were at-fault" but NEVER DO WE EVEN CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT **NONE** WERE AT-FAULT.
THERE MUST BE A "GOOD GUY" AND A "BAD GUY".
THERE MUST BE A "HERO" AND THERE MUST BE A "VILLIAN".
### REAL-TRUE-FACTS:
###
12:40 AM MARCH 13TH 2020 - three plainclothes officers serve a no-knock warrant.
FULL STOP.
WHY??
Because Breonna Taylor was listed as a telephone contact and her apartment's mailing address was listed by Jamarcus Glover who was currently under investigation and wanted by police. Spoiler alert: Jamarcus Glover was actually arrested (10 miles away, at his home) at almost the exact same time that Breonna Taylor was shot to death.
Detective Joshua Jaynes, who obtained the search warrant for Taylor’s apartment, has also been **reassigned** by the department’s leadership **[NOT CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME]**. [LINK](https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200924/fact-checking-8-myths-in-breonna-taylor-case-was-she-asleep-when-police-shot-her-is-there-body-cam-footage)
The search warrant for Taylor and her home explicitly identified her and her address. The Louisville police were not there by mistake. They believed that Taylor had ties to [Jamarcus] Glover **[GUILT-BY-ASSOCIATION]**, one of the main suspects in the [DRUG RELATED] investigation. [LINK](https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200924/fact-checking-8-myths-in-breonna-taylor-case-was-she-asleep-when-police-shot-her-is-there-body-cam-footage)
A subsequent search of Taylor’s apartment found no drugs. [LINK](https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200924/fact-checking-8-myths-in-breonna-taylor-case-was-she-asleep-when-police-shot-her-is-there-body-cam-footage)
# Police located their main suspect before going into Taylor’s home
###
### 2 WARRANTS WERE SERVED SIMULTANEOUSLY AND THE "TARGET" JAMARCUS GLOVER WAS ARRESTED WITHOUT BLOODSHED AT HIS HOME. RENDERING ANY "SEARCH" FOR JAMARCUS GLOVER AT BREONNA TAYLOR'S APARTMENT UNNECESSARY.
###
But even if [Jamarcus] Glover was not in custody before officers forced their way into Taylor’s home, based on statements by Mattingly, police still likely **knew where he was** at that time, as attorneys for Taylor’s family assert. [LINK](https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200924/fact-checking-8-myths-in-breonna-taylor-case-was-she-asleep-when-police-shot-her-is-there-body-cam-footage)
**Judge Mary Shaw** has refused to address the case and her decision to sign the search warrant with The Courier Journal, but she has since told The New York Times she “asked needed questions of the officer, reviewed the affidavits prepared for each warrant and subsequently made the probable-cause determination required of me by law.” [NO DETAILS PROVIDED] [LINK](https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200924/fact-checking-8-myths-in-breonna-taylor-case-was-she-asleep-when-police-shot-her-is-there-body-cam-footage)
Louisville’s U.S. postal inspector, Tony Gooden, told WDRB News in May that a different agency (which he did not identify) had asked in January to look into whether Taylor’s home was receiving suspicious mail. The office had concluded that the apartment was not, Gooden said. [LINK](https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200924/fact-checking-8-myths-in-breonna-taylor-case-was-she-asleep-when-police-shot-her-is-there-body-cam-footage)
Additionally, though Taylor and Glover once dated, Glover said they were no longer in touch before her death. There is no evidence Glover was living in Taylor’s apartment. [LINK](https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200924/fact-checking-8-myths-in-breonna-taylor-case-was-she-asleep-when-police-shot-her-is-there-body-cam-footage)
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd1HGmobf5g&list=PLpmLmx2zr10OM14A77GpwxYV6JVrZq6Oj"></a>
# CONCLUSIONS.
###
THIS IS A MASSIVE FAILURE OF INTELLIGENCE.
THE PATRIOT ACT GIVES POLICE VAST, SWEEPING, AND VIRTUALLY UNFETTERED SURVEILLANCE POWERS.
(IFF) THE POLICE HAD NARROWED THE SUSPECT'S LOCATION TO ONLY 2 LIKELY LOCATIONS, WHY DID THEY NOT SIMPLY WAIT FOR THE SUSPECT TO WALK OUTSIDE INTO AN AMBUSH? OR WHY DID THEY NOT SIMPLY PLACE A TRACKER ON THEIR VEHICLE AND AMBUSH THEM (IN PLAINCLOTHES) AS THEY CARRY GROCERIES BACK TO THEIR CAR?
AND IF 3 GUYS IN **PLAINCLOTHES** STARTED BANGING ON MY DOOR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT YELLING "THIS IS THE POLICE" I WOULDN'T BELIEVE THEM.
PRO TIP: I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN AND IT WASN'T "THE POLICE" AT ALL.
I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,
At what point did we begin to conflate MONEY with MORALITY?
# NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE OR A JUDGE, THEY CAN LEGALLY LIE TO YOU
# NEVER CONVICT PEOPLE CHARGED WITH LAWS YOU DISAGREE WITH
### Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time
###
Essential HIVE links,
I WILL UPVOTE ANY AND ALL COMMENTS ON THIS POST, 1 UPVOTE PER ACCOUNT. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LEAVE A "∴"
Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero). In fact, I would prefer that you don't give me "credit" and simply post any choice quotes as your own (to mitigate the genetic fallacy). Sort of a "Creative Commons (-1)".
<center><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd1HGmobf5g&list=PLpmLmx2zr10OM14A77GpwxYV6JVrZq6Oj"></a>
[ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd1HGmobf5g&list=PLpmLmx2zr10OM14A77GpwxYV6JVrZq6Oj)</center>
<center>
### +proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.</center>
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I believe the only measure of an argument should be your ability to convince an opponent.
By removing the "audience" from the equation, you automatically get a much more honest discussion and exploration of opposing ideas. It would also save a lot of time for the moderators sifting through long and detailed "reasons for vote". I'm sure a lot of "self-moderated" debates would end in a tie, but I don't see that as a "problem".
At the end of each debate, each participant would get 1 point for participation and have the option of awarding up to 3 additional points to their opponent. These points would simply accumulate over time and would count towards a debater's "Civil Debate" tally. Alternatively you might consider splitting their score into three parts ("1/1/1") where the first number is the number of "Civil Debates" they've participated in, the second number is the number of points they've received from other players and the third number is the number of points they've granted to their opponents.
This system ("1/1/1") would allow you to know, at a glance, how experienced they are in this particular debate format, how convincing they are generally considered by their opponents, and how receptive and or generous they are (making them a more attractive opponent).
Self-moderating debates are an interesting idea. In an ideal world, where everyone is willing to honestly consider other people's ideas, it would work well. In the world we're actually in, I see some problems with it. A lot of people here are more interested in debating as a competition (which is fine). The current system lends itself to this, with win records and ratings. Adding self-moderating debates where the goal is to convince and to learn wouldn't jive well with that system. Debaters interested only in winning probably wouldn't assign a fair number of points to their opponents. On the other hand, self-moderating debates might appeal more to people like UpholdingTheFaith, who want a more discussion based format than a formal debate. I'm not sure how the two formats would mix. It could work if self-moderating debates were unrated or in their own rating system, but those solutions seem clunky to me.
I would be perfectly happy with an "unranked" status for "self-moderated" debates.
At the same time, I think it would be **useful** to know how charitable (open-minded) a potential debate partner has been in the past.
The main reason I no longer participate in the current debate system is because most of my debates go **unvoted** on.
The other reason I no longer participate in the current debate system is because I disagree with the RFD rules and most of the judge's OPINIONS.
A "self-moderated" debate might end in a **tie**, but it will never go "unvoted" and if there is any dispute about "who won", at least both sides are on **equal footing** and it doesn't devolve into "who has the most friends" or "who's the most popular with the judges".
And just to be perfectly clear, the **current system** and current rules and ranking system would be **100% UNCHANGED** by this proposal. [***](https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5-platform-development?page=56&post_number=1378)
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd1HGmobf5g&list=PLpmLmx2zr10OM14A77GpwxYV6JVrZq6Oj"></a>
SEARCH **ROKU** TV FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH YOUTUBE FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
# THE PRIMARY USE-CASE FOR CIVIL DEBATE
###
I've seen a lot of chatter lately from very intelligent individuals who believe "the marketplace of ideas" HAS FAILED.
There are a **shocking** number of calls to "ban" or at least "suppress", "warning label", "shadow ban" "DANGEROUS IDEAS" and or otherwise hyper-promote "OFFICIAL NARRITIVES" (VERIFIED BY "OFFICIAL" "government approved" FACT-CHECKERS).
Even by **self-described** "rational skeptics", "atheists", "free-thinkers", and "libertarians".
For example, "Rational Disconnect" and Penn Jillette and even Lucien Greaves have stated plainly that unfettered "free speech" is a "DANGEROUS" ideology with "no obvious solution".
**I STRONGLY DISAGREE.**
THE "PROBLEM" ISN'T MISINFORMATION, FAKE NEWS, AND OR "DANGEROUS" IDEAS.
THE "PROBLEM" IS THE FORMAT.
### THE "PROBLEM" IS THE FRAMEWORK OF THE DEBATE ITSELF.
###
THE "PROBLEM" IS THAT PEOPLE HAVEN'T MADE ANY EFFORT TO CLEARLY DISTINGUISH FACT FROM OPINION.
THE "PROBLEM" IS THAT PEOPLE ARE NEVER FOCUSED ON **CONVINCING** THEIR OPPONENTS.
THE "PROBLEM" IS THAT PEOPLE ARE ONLY IN A **RUSH-TO-DISQUALIFY** ANYONE AND EVERYONE THEY DISAGREE WITH (CANCEL CULTURE).
### THOUGHT =/= CRIME
###
IT IS RIDICULOUSLY SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT A FACT IS.
A FACT MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY QUANTA (EMOTIONALLY MEANINGLESS).
**AN OPINION IS ANYTHING THAT IS NOT A FACT.**
THIS INCLUDES ALL SCIENTIFIC **CONCLUSIONS**.
FLAT-EARTH IS NOT A "DANGEROUS IDEA"
it's an opinion.
QANON IS NOT A "DANGEROUS IDEA"
it's an opinion.
RELIGION IS NOT A "DANGEROUS IDEA"
it's an opinion.
HATE SPEECH IS NOT A "DANGEROUS IDEA"
it's an opinion.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU DISAGREE.
# I SAID IT FIRST.
JOIN THE CREATIVE COMMONS ZERO PROJECT BY COPYING THIS CONTENT AND CLAIMING IT AS YOUR OWN. **COPYRIGHT = CENSORSHIP.** STOP PAYING CORPORATE GOONS FOR THEIR STORIES AND IMAGES. STOP DEFENDING CORPORATE GOONS FOR FREE. **MORALITY =/= MONEY.**
I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU"></a>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU)
<a href="https://youtu.be/casQQhO1jkw?t=26"></a>
https://youtu.be/casQQhO1jkw?t=26 [https://youtu.be/casQQhO1jkw?t=26](https://youtu.be/casQQhO1jkw?t=26)
At what point did we begin to conflate MONEY with MORALITY?
# NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE OR A JUDGE, THEY CAN LEGALLY LIE TO YOU
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE"></a>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)
# NEVER CONVICT PEOPLE CHARGED WITH LAWS YOU DISAGREE WITH
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu08TKhWzLs"></a>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu08TKhWzLs [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu08TKhWzLs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu08TKhWzLs)
### Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time
###
I'm afraid that rights are mostly granted by mob democracy. A man's right to life and liberty can be taken away by any group larger, better armed and/or better organized than his. The mechanism is and always has been concerned citizens fighting against the status quo for the betterment of the status quo.
Essential HIVE links,
I WILL UPVOTE ANY AND ALL COMMENTS ON THIS POST, 1 UPVOTE PER ACCOUNT. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LEAVE A "∴"
Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero). In fact, I would prefer that you don't give me "credit" and simply post any choice quotes as your own (to mitigate the genetic fallacy). Sort of a "Creative Commons (-1)".
<center><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd1HGmobf5g&list=PLpmLmx2zr10OM14A77GpwxYV6JVrZq6Oj"></a>
[ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd1HGmobf5g&list=PLpmLmx2zr10OM14A77GpwxYV6JVrZq6Oj)</center>
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
HUNTER BIDEN, ALL SMOKE AND NO FIRE?
I keep hearing that "the REAL story is being censored".
Please share any information you might have on the subject.
President Trump on Sunday said the damning information contained on Hunter Biden’s laptop about his business dealings in Ukraine – as The Post revealed last week – is the “REAL DEAL” and cannot be denied.
“Hunter Biden’s laptop is a disaster for the entire Biden family, but especially for his father, Joe. It is now a proven fact, and cannot be denied, that all of that info is the REAL DEAL,” the president wrote on Twitter. [LINK]
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If you attack (censor/demonize) people for saying itsoktobeblank, you are contributing to their radicalization. By excluding them from the conversation, you are forcing them into a toxic echo-chamber. If you are unable to acknowledge that you can agree with some points a person makes while disagreeing with other points a person makes, instead of accepting or rejecting them wholesale, then you are no longer a skeptical-free-thinker, and you are instead an insular "arbiter of truth" advocating censorship of people and ideas you happen to disagree with.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Gersonides (Levi ben Gershom, Ralbag, 1288-1344) also explains the tenth commandment as active planning (Exod 20:14):
וענין החמדה הוא שישתדל שיהיו לו, כאילו תאמר שיתן ממון לרעהו, שיגרש אשתו כדי שישאנה, או שימכור לו עבדו ואמתו ושורו וחמורו או אחד משאר קניניו, כי זאת היא תכונה רעה מאד להשתדל שיֵצאו קניני רעהו מתחת ידו אם לא יתרצה מעצמו למוכרם ולהוציאם מתחת ידו.
The meaning of “covet” is to attempt to attain something from one’s neighbor, for example, to offer him money to divorce his wife so that he can marry her, or to sell him his slave or his ox or his donkey or any other piece of his property. This is a very evil characteristic, to attempt to take away one’s neighbor’s possessions when he himself does not wish to sell them and part with them.
וכבר למדנו שהחמדה אינה בלב לבד, אבל יש עמה מעשה, ממה שאמרה התורה: ׳לא תחמֹד כסף וזהב עליהם ולקחת לך׳. ואמר עוד: ׳ולא יחמֹד איש את ארצך בעלֹתך לראות׳ — רוצה לומר שלא ישתדל איש לקחת אותה בעלותך לרגל; וכן אמר: ׳וחמדו שדות וגזלו׳.
We already know that coveting is not just in one’s heart, but that it entails some action from what is said in the Torah “you shall not covet the silver and gold on them and keep it for yourselves” (Deut 7:25). Similarly, [the Torah] says: “no one will covet your land when you go up to appear” (Exod 34:24), meaning to say, that no man will try to take it when you go up for pilgrimage. And [the Bible] says: “They covet fields, and seize them” (Micah 2:2).
ולזה לא יהיה עובר על לאו זה אם לא עשה מעשה באופן שיהיה לו הדבר שיחמוד.
Hence, we infer that one does not violate the prohibition if one does not actually do something in order to obtain the coveted object.
Thus, for Gersonides, the Rabbinic interpretation is the simple meaning of the text. In the Bible, coveting refers to the first step in the process of taking something from one’s fellow that is his/hers and not yours. Thus, it is not the flickering thought of coveting that is forbidden here, but rather when one seriously begins to plan how to actualize the sinful thought. [LINK]
And another interesting interpretation of "covet" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaFca9vZvn8
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
One personal conclusion I have made is that Atheists have far too much Faith for me, to be able to declare that there is no Creator, while breathing.
The Christians are the original Atheists.
In primal cultures, competing tribes would always argue, "our gods are more powerful than your gods".
The Christians changed this to, "your gods don't even exist", "you're all just superstitious idiots".
Atheists believe exactly what the Christians believe regarding the existence of gods, they just happen to believe in one less.
I'm not sure I'd call that "faith".
I mean, how much "faith" does it take to NOT-believe in Santa Claus?
How much "faith" does it take to NOT-believe in Nanabozho?
The (self-described) Atheists that I've spoken to often complain that their position is often misunderstood.
Calling someone by what they're NOT is a rather peculiar phenomenon.
It would be like everyone calling you a "non-astronaut" or a "non-stamp-collector".
MOST (but not all) people who call themselves "Atheist" try to make it clear that they are NOT saying there is NO POSSIBLE GOD(S). Instead, they're simply asserting that there is no compelling evidence of any SPECIFIC GOD(S).
In the same way it takes no "faith" to disbelieve in Russell's Teapot.
And often, the word "GOD" is an implicit reference to the "YHWH", and that one is particularly incoherent.
That isn't to say that Atheists are free of superstition.
A frightening number of Atheists still believe in the ridiculous concept of "freewill".
And they don't even have the good sense to call that "faith", they just call it "common sense".
I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Judge Nukes Ill. Lockdown: Pritzker 'Had No Authority' to Restrict Movement and Close Businesses
Illinois Circuit Court Judge Mike McHaney ruled on Thursday that Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois had no lawful authority to declare endless disasters past the initial thirty days. Ruling on a lawsuit filed by State House Rep. Darren Bailey (R-Ill.), Judge McHaney wrote, “The court declares that Defendant had no constitutional authority as Governor to restrict a citizen’s movement or activities and/or forcibly close business premises in EO 32.” [LINK](https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2020/07/02/judge-nukes-ill-lockdown-pritzker-had-no-authority-to-restrict-movement-and-close-businesses-n600395)
SERMON BANNED FROM YOUTUBE
Even if you're not a christian, you should give this video a look.
Near the end of May, the governor of Illinois declared that he was going to charge business owners that opened before he says they can open with misdemeanors, he was going to actually make them into criminals. The next day, one lone county, called Madison county, way out in western Illinois, assembled their county board together, and put out a proclamation declaring that they would NOT obey the governor, and then they would protect the businessmen within their county, that they can open and they'll use all the power at their hands to protect them from the governor and the state. One lone county. The very next day, the Illinois state police put out a press release saying they would NOT arrest anyone who opens their business and charge them as the governor has ordered. And the very next day after that, the governor rescinded his order. Amen. Our founding fathers wanted it, so if one branch of government began to play the tyrant, the other branches of government would resist that branch. It's called "checks and balances".
For example, the governor here in Wisconsin was checked, by our supreme court, and all his tyranny was ended mid May. Even the lame GOP legislature, that brought the court action was chagrined by the court, as the court ended IT ALL. While the GOP legislature, in good GOP fashion, just wanted to be able to regulate the evil [tyranny]. Our state supreme court ENDED IT ALL. So governor Evers [democrat] now has the counties and municipalities doing his dirty work, this is seen and reported in the Wisconsin counties association. A website you should all be familiar with, all these counties coming up with the same idea, very draconian measures regarding the strength they want to give to their "health officials". Including POLICING POWERS. Yeah, they all just came up with that on their own? No, they all work together and you know what, most of these people that are in county government, they're like most Americans. They're only in there for their own self-aggrandizement.
DHS 145 is the applicable statute, 145.06 paragraph 2 states, "The state has to declare the individual contagious by a medical authority", then 145.06 paragraph 4 gives 7 options for the state to pursue if someone is contagious, NONE of them includes forcing them to wear a mask.
AND EVEN OUR CHRISTIAN FRIENDS ARE STARTING TO BECOME CONCERNED.
Skip to 1209 seconds,
Click to watch 43 seconds,
I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,
Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime.
Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero). In fact, I would prefer that you don't give me "credit" and simply post any choice quotes as your own (to mitigate the genetic fallacy). Sort of a "Creative Commons (-1)".
1,000 HIVE ($200.00 USD) prize pool for amateur writers, artists, and musicians - theme is "Cyber Pirates versus Werewolf Ninjas" - [LINK](https://hive.blog/hive-171744/@logiczombie/1-000-00-hive-art-music-writing-contest-cyber-pirates-versus-werewolf-ninjas)
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The "reality" of the situation is much more fundamental.
A FEUDAL HIERARCHY will always use FEAR to tighten its collective stranglehold on citizens.
A FEUDAL HIERARCHY will always use FEAR in order to con citizens into "voluntarily" giving up their constitutional rights.
The lockdown may or may not be based on "nothing".
But that's actually purely incidental (moot, red-herring).
Even (IFF) the "deadly" SARS-2 is "really real" (THEN) the government STILL has ZERO authority to force people to stay in their homes and or deny them the right to free assembly and or force them to wear protective clothing and or wash their hands.
There is ZERO authority for any of these "emergency" "measures".
This would be TRUE even if we were in the middle of a full blown ZOMBIE OUTBREAK.
THE PLAN, in 20 minutes,
Bill Gates, the World Health Organization and the World Bank are working with AADHAAR to create a worldwide unique digital ID for every human on the planet. **This is not a "conspiracy theory".** This is already happening. This unique digital ID will allow any "criminals" (dissidents, protesters) to be automatically frozen out of the CASHLESS global banking system. If you get BLACKLISTED you will lose access to your purely digital money in your purely digital bank. You will also be frozen out of the internet, so you will not be able to even look for a job. And even if you manage to find a job locally, nobody will hire you without scanning your digital ID for a "non-criminal" (non-dissident, non-protester) status.
THE EVENT, in 15 minutes,
From 2018 (this is not new):
This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making the guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers - if that technology could be developed in time.
"TWO PARTY" = ONE PARTY
SOCIALISM = CAPITALISM
BLACK = WHITE
We really need to stop bickering about "liberals" and "conservatives" and "SJWs" and "BLM" and "MAGA".
The REAL OWNERS are just pitting us against each other, distracting us with "scary criminals" and idiotic "elections" which they're fully in control of regardless of who you vote for.
We are already living in a POLICE STATE.
WE MUST DEMAND RCV.
Here's the problem,
We currently live in a society where a co-worker can drop their bank debit card in your car, and then call the police and report their card stolen, and describe your vehicle.
Then you can be pulled over and searched and when the lost card is discovered, you will be taken by police and your automobile impounded. And they take your cell phone, so if you don't have any phone numbers memorized, or if the person you call doesn't happen to answer the phone, you're SOL.
You can be held "pending trial" for months and so they tell you, if you sign some papers they'll let you go home, I'm sure this is all a big misunderstanding.
But those papers happen to be a confession, and that allows a judge to make a summary judgement because you "confessed" there is NO TRIAL.
Then you spend 3 years under guard.
Now you can't even get a decent job because almost nobody will even consider hiring a convicted felon.
The current federal asset forfeiture laws were championed by JOE BIDEN.
Your PROPERTY can be confiscated by the state WITHOUT TRIAL.
THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM.
THE POOR HAVE NO CIVIL RIGHTS.
AND THE POOR AND MIDDLECLASS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER.
YOU ARE **GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.**
I CAN SEND A DEATH SQUAD TO YOUR HOUSE TONIGHT BY SIMPLY TELLING THE SWAT TEAM THAT I THINK YOU'RE A DRUG KINGPIN.
SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY WRONG.
THE ENTIRE WAR ON DRUGS IS A SCAM CREATED BY THE STATE IN ORDER TO SUPPRESS THE HIPPIES AND BLACK-PANTHERS.
THE ENTIRE WAR ON DRUGS IS A SCAM CREATED TO SUPPRESS ANTI-WAR AND ANTI-GOVERNMENT PROTESTERS.
THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A SCAM.
THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR ON CIVIL RIGHTS.
THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR ON PERSONAL PRIVACY.
THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR ON PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
DEMAND HOLOCRACY + RCV.
I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,
Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime.
Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero). In fact, I would prefer that you don't give me "credit" and simply post any choice quotes as your own (to mitigate the genetic fallacy). Sort of a "Creative Commons (-1)".
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Click to watch 31 minutes,
The analysis is much more rigorous than I expected, and I agree with most (but not all) of the initial presentation.
However, one glaring omission the speaker makes is a condition called ANDROGEN INSENSITIVITY.
ANDROGEN INSENSITIVITY is when a person has XY chromosomes (apparently the "gold standard" for "sexgender" which happens to be quite a strange "bald assertion" ontologically, specifically because chromosomes weren't even discovered until the mid 1880s, WTF).
ANDROGEN INSENSITIVITY is when a person has XY chromosomes (this speaker might call them "male") and yet, even though they have XY chromosomes, their cells are ANDROGEN INSENSITIVE and therefore are unaffected by that specific hormone and are therefore fully female in physical appearance, bone structure, girly parts and everything else.
In case you missed that.
There are people alive today with XY chromosomes who are physically indistinguishable from female.
They were literally born this way.
Now, you might say "this is extremely rare and therefore can be dismissed out-of-hand as a statistical fluke".
However, because we do not TEST FOR THIS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW "RARE" IT MIGHT BE.
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
And, to be generous, EVEN IFF it was found to be "extremely rare", it still proves that "sexgender" is not 100% dictated by your magical biblical chromosomes.
AND there is absolutely no way for anyone to KNOW this without violating personal privacy.
There are also cases where a person has what might at first glance appear to be an XY, but the **Y itself** can have a 4th stub (leg) of various lengths (imagine an X with a short leg), the shorter the stub, the more "male" they appear, and the longer the stub, the more "female" they appear.
THE KEY TAKEAWAY FROM ALL OF THIS IS THAT IT IS A VIOLATION OF PRIVACY TO DEMAND THAT ANYONE "PROVE" THEIR GENDER.
IT IS A MATTER OF **FUNDAMENTAL** PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
The classical Problem of Identity is and has been and always will be a PRIVATE PERSONAL JOURNEY.
SOCIAL NORMS ARE FLUID.
THERE IS NO REASON TO CODIFY SOCIAL NORMS.
WHAT WE SHOULD CODIFY IS PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
WHAT WE SHOULD CODIFY IS PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
This kind of RED-HERRING petty divisive bickering ("moral outrage") is EXACTLY what our OWNERS need in order to keep the working class and poor people pitted **against** each other.
I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,
Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime.
Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero). In fact, I would prefer that you don't give me "credit" and simply post any choice quotes as your own (to mitigate the genetic fallacy). Sort of a "Creative Commons (-1)".
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Yes, and this is the type of thing i mean when I say we should not let up on the narrative. There is no need to dilute the simple truth that he catered (and probably backmailed) many in positions of power.
I applaud the efforts of people who are trying to "bring this to light" (like @ura-soul and yourself). [***]
However, the main "problem" with this approach is that it focuses too much on "bad actors" and by doing this you divert attention and potentially exculpate "THE SYSTEM" (namely, FEUDAL HIERARCHY).
And without systemic reform (HOLACRACY), we'll just end up with new and "improved" "HEROES" (CON-ARTIST MOBSTERS).
And we don't want to fall into the HERO trap.
Click to watch 4 minutes,
We must insist on a system that mitigates all forms of DEMONIZATION. [***]
We must insist on a system that protects truly INALIENABLE RIGHTS (rights that nobody can "voluntarily" sign away).
We must insist on a ("legal") system that holds the PRIMARY AXIOMS.
We must insist on a policy of +proHUMAN.
We must insist on a policy of +proFAMILY.
We must insist on a policy of +proSOVEREIGNTY.
We must insist on a SYSTEM that can be effectively operated by SELF-INTERESTED BABIES (not "heroes").
Special thanks to @practicalthought
Click to watch 3 minutes,
Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
When women hate men, it's because they believe (falsely) that men have the "best deal" and the gain of one is at the expense of the other.
When "non-whites" hate "whites", it's because they believe (falsely) that "whites" have the "best deal" and the gain of one is at the expense of the other.
When "liberals" hate "conservatives", it's because they believe (falsely) that "conservatives" have the "best deal" and the gain of one is at the expense of the other.
And when "whites" hate "non-whites", it's because they believe (falsely) that "non-whites" have the "best deal" and the gain of one is at the expense of the other.
And when men hate "feminists", it's because they believe (falsely) that "feminists" have the "best deal" and the gain of one is at the expense of the other.
And when "conservatives" hate "liberals", it's because they believe (falsely) that "liberals" have the "best deal" and the gain of one is at the expense of the other.
ALL OF THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT OUR CORPORATE OWNERS NEED.
THE POOR FIGHTING EACH OTHER FOR A SLIGHTLY LARGER CUT OF THE TOXIC GARBAGE HEAP.
Special thanks to @oldoneeye
Click to watch 3 minutes,
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I'm suggesting that if you believe in fundamental, inalienable human rights (THEN) you must also believe in some reliable and durable enforcement mechanism that protects those rights.
Otherwise, you're "rights" are going to be stripped from you.
What you're saying is not true. If I steal your thing, it does not become not your thing because you did not enforce the possession of that thing. Something can be wrong, even if it happens. There are consequences for actions as seen in natural law. Some call it karma. You do good and good happens to you, generally speaking. Rights do not come from people and are not enforced or protected by people.
"inherent" "objective" "morality" is a pervasive myth (brainwashing) that turns our natural instincts (core family dynamic) against our fellow man and twists them in favor of those who hold the levers of power.
It's a con-game that saves them enormous amounts of time and money enforcing their will.
When our owners violate "inherent" "objective" "morality" and we are outraged, but powerless, and our screams of protest are silenced by a boot on our neck (the boot of a fellow peasant) we comfort ourselves with this idiotic myth, "THEY WILL SUFFER IN HELL", and our owners laugh all the way to the bank.
Click to watch 3 minutes,
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Moral Truth – The Problems with Moral Relativism
Problem 1: Moral relativism suffers from what is known as the reformer’s dilemma. If moral relativism is true, then societies cannot have moral reformers. Why? Moral reformers are members of a society that stand outside that society’s moral code and pronounce a need for reform and change in that code. For example, Corrie ten Boom risked her life to save Jews during the Holocaust. William Wilberforce sought the abolition of slavery in the late 18th century. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought for civil rights in the U.S. If moral relativism is true, then these reformers were immoral. You see, if an act is right if and only if it is in keeping with a given society’s code, then the moral reformer himself is by definition an immoral person. Moral reformers must always be wrong because they go against the code of their society. But such a view is defective for we all know that real moral reform has taken place!
Problem 2: Moral relativists cannot improve their morality. Neither cultures nor individuals can improve their morality. The only thing they can do is change it. Think of what it means to improve something. Improvement means becoming better at something. But becoming better at something requires an external standard of comparison. To improve a society’s moral code means that the society changes its laws and values closer to an external ideal. If no such standard exists, then there is no way for the new standard to be better than the original; they can only be different. A society can abolish apartheid (racism) in favor of equality. A society can provide equal rights for women. It can guarantee freedom of speech and the press. But according to moral relativism, these are mere changes, not improvements. The Nazis used moral relativism as a defense for their crimes at the Nuremberg trials. The court condemned them because they said there is a law above culture.
Problem 3: Moral relativists cannot complain about the problem of evil. The problem of evil is one of the most commonly raised objections to the existence of God. Some of the great atheists— Bertrand Russell, David Hume, H.G. Wells— concluded on the basis of the evil and suffering in the world that the God of the Bible must not exist (genocide, child abuse, suicide bombings). The common argument is that if God was all-good and all-powerful he would deal with evil. But evil exists, so God must not. The force of this objection rests upon moral evil being real and some things being objectively wrong. But such a claim is peculiar if we understand the nature of evil. Evil is a perversion of good. There can be good without evil, but not evil without good. There can be right without wrong, but not wrong unless there is first right. If morality is ultimately a matter of personal tastes, like ice cream flavor, the argument against God’s existence based on evil vanishes. If evil is real, then so is absolute good, which means moral relativism is false.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Hey guys! *This post is not for debating for and against objective morality* Rather I would like to challenge everyone to think and search for the evidence of objective morality. The goal I think is to understand what we currently know and take for granted.
I will start us off with what I know:
First and foremost is the world's tendency towards a moral law. Maybe it is harder for us to see directly, but everything we do is guided by a reasoning of "do or ought not do." It is easily seen when we say "should I", as you do when you make the decision to eat breakfast or go to work. This means we have an evaluation before we make an act. We obviously don't see these type of premeditation in animals (try keeping a hungry chicken from food for example XD), which points us to something else special for us.
Now we look at our actions to see where objectivity lies. To be objectively moral means to have an objective standard by which you measure things to. When you are cut in line, or are cheated, beaten etc, we always expect the person hurting us to understand the wrongness of what he did, appealing to a common standard (which is why we want him punished). This doesn't mean that we have to follow this standard, but that we both see it. We don't expect these same standards of animals (try telling a mosquito to stop sucking blood ;), but instead expect it of those around us.
This is big, because just as we have an innate untaught sense to eat, this standard guides us beyond the likes of animals, explaining why people from all cultures and backgrounds all point to murder and atrocities such as Hitler's exterminations as objectively wrong.
(once more I only ask for brain storming on the topic of objective morality not a debate on it ;)
Please know it that I do not want a search from the perspective of a moral creator (though surly it leads it it), instead I ask we use our combined minds to reveal what we can know by observation.
I would love to see more examples of how the moral law affects our lives or how we would be without morality. These two things certainly bring us to understand how the moral law exists.
"A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true" - Socrates
"Force always attracts men of low morality" -Albert Einstein
"Truth is certainly a branch of morality and a very important one to society" -Thomas Jefferson
Thank you all,
To truth!
-logicae
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy